Why is this stuff in our water?

1. Thank you Dr. Limeback for providing authoritative credibility. Indeed, we should pay no attention to RJ. I also discovered, about a decade ago, as a career engineer employed with a municipal public works department, after being promoted to Senior Engineer in the Water Supply Division, that the fluoridating chemical added to the drinking water, fluorosilicic acid (FSA) was invariably contaminated with arsenic in measured concentrations, typically from 25-50 mg/L, and sometimes of up to 60 mg/L. It does get diluted, down to fractions of a parts per billion (ug/L). However, the fact remains that the EPA has established the public health goal, albeit unenforceable Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG) for arsenic in drinking water as zero. In other words, there is no margin of safety for knowingly adding arsenic to the drinking water.

   • jJMuller – You are correct that the arsenic level from fluoridation chemicals “does get diluted, down to fractions of a parts per billion”. However, your groundless fear is unwarranted.

     According to the NSF Fluoride Fact Sheet, the “data reported in Tables 1, 2, and 3 demonstrate that very low concentrations of contaminants [including arsenic] are associated with fluoridation chemicals. In fact, NSF was only able to detect the reported trace amounts by dosing the chemicals into reagent water at 10 times the manufacturer’s maximum use level and then mathematically adjusting the laboratory results to expected field dose. … Arsenic was periodically detected in half of all samples. However, the mean arsenic concentration is 1/50th of the U.S. EPA MCL and none of the samples exceeded 1/10th the U.S. EPA MCL. … In summary, fluoridation products certified by NSF do not contribute a significant contaminant burden to drinking water.”

     In other words, fluoridation opponents have nothing to produce besides unwarranted fear in support of their opinions. If one is to be so fearful of proven health measures as to ignore the established benefits and focus all one’s fear on extremely small (often unproven) risks, one might as well avoid participating in any human activity that has any associated risks.

     • RJ, you have rightfully earned a nomination for the Annual Darwin Awards. Suggesting that an individual increase their risk of bladder and lung cancer by increasing their already existent exposure to arsenic (from food and other environmental and/or occupational sources) to gain the disputed and equivocal benefit of getting three repairable cavities instead of four over a lifetime (proclaimed average 25% reduction in tooth decay by drinking artificially fluoridated water) may very well get you and your followers a winning prize.

       • JMueller

         Dental decay is a very dangerous bacterial infection occurring in close proximity to the brain, with a direct path to the rest of the body via the bloodstream. While there is no credible concern with the minuscule amount of arsenic in fluoridated water at the tap, or from that in countless other substances we regularly consume, there is well documented evidence of the lifetimes of severe pain, debilitation, black discoloration and loss of teeth, development of serious medical conditions, and life-threatening infection from untreated decay in but one tooth. While there is no credible documentation of any illness, much less death, from the minuscule amount of arsenic in fluoridated water at the tap, or from that in countless other substances we regularly consume, there are well-documented instances of death directly caused by untreated dental decay in but one tooth.

         Given these facts, readers are free to determine on their own, whom has earned the “winning prize” here.

         Steven D. Slott, DDS

         • JMueller – Read Dr. Slott’s comment.

           If you can provide legitimate scientific evidence that an increase in arsenic exposure from 0 ppb to 0.15 ppb in water (the increased levels that may be attributable to fluoridation chemicals), then there will be something to discuss. If that level of exposure to arsenic was proven to significantly increase health risks, there would be quite a lot more problems than with fluoridation.
           Search on:
           > how much arsenic is in food?
           > foods that contain the most arsenic
           > is there arsenic in my wine?

     • By the way, the arsenic occurrence figures cited in your quoted NSF statement above are either falsified or were derived from cherry-picked analytical results. The Mosaic Company’s very own analytical results from their Riverview production facility show As (arsenic) concentrations in that facility’s FSA, for sampling periods 01/11 – 06/13, increased from 47.5 ppm to 60.1 ppm.
       Is NSF a classic example of the fox guarding the henhouse? Mosaic is one of the major suppliers of fluorosilicic acid in the U.S. Your quote shows that adding arsenic-contaminated FSA is legal, albeit with falsified or cherry-picked data, but legal does not equal safe.

       • As any competent “career engineer employed with a municipal public works department,” should know, NSF International is an independent laboratory facility with which the EPA contracts to ensure all drinking water meets the stringent Standard 60 certification requirements. That you are unaware of these requirements and personally opine that NSF findings are “falsified or were derived from cherry-picked analytical results” is clear evidence of your lack of understanding of even the basics of water treatment, or where to obtain accurate information.

         The data with which you continue to attempt to provoke undue fear is in regard to undiluted, raw HFA. Water that we consume is from the tap, not directly from a bag of undiluted HFA. As detailed NSF data clearly shows, the amount of arsenic detected in water at the tap fluoridated with HFA is far below the EPA MCL for arsenic of 10 parts per billion. Explanations such as this would not need to be made to a competent water operator.

         The complete NSF data may be viewed in entirety in the “Fact Sheet on Fluoridation Substances” located on the website of NSF International.

         Again, as the facts and data clearly demonstrate, arsenic is of no concern, whatsoever, in water at the tap fluoridated with HFA. That this disagrees with your unsupported personal opinions is unfortunate for you, but, facts are facts.

         Steven D. Slott, DDS

         • EPA contracts with NSF International? Where did you come up with that one?

   • It’s interesting that the fluoridation opponents posting here seem to fear the facts presented by RJohnson to the extent of trying to steer other readers away from them. This is reflective of a profound, and fully justified, lack of confidence in their own position.

     Due to the ubiquity of arsenic throughout nature, there is little that is not “contaminated” with it. The EPA MCLG is a non-enforceable goal, which, by policy, is set at zero for substances which have been shown to be carcinogenic, regardless the concentration at which carcinogenicity may occur. Arsenic, at high levels, can be carcinogenic. Therefore, as a matter of policy, it’s MCLG is set at zero. Given the ubiquity of arsenic, along with evidence that it may be a required nutrient, it is likely that a zero level of this substance is neither attainable, nor even desirable.

     The EPA MCL is that concentration of a substance, below which the EPA has established to be safe for human consumption and attainable with current technology. The MCL is a mandated maximum level, enforceable by law. The EPA MCL for arsenic is 10 parts per billion. The maximum amount of arsenic in water at the tap fluoridated with hydrofluorosilc acid, as determined by stringent testing under Standard 60 of NSF International, is 0.6 parts per billion.

     Obviously, arsenic is of no concern in HFA fluoridated water at the tap.

     Steven D. Slott, DDS

     • “. . lack of confidence . .”? Where did that come from, other than the pro-F strategy of deflecting the conversation away from some of the lesser known but irrefutable, well documented facts about “Why is this stuff in our water?” Another answer to that original question, explicitly in writing on EPA’s Office of Water letterhead, is that fluoridation with FSA is a convenient way of disposing of an otherwise known and troublesome pollutant from the phosphate mining and fertilizer manufacturing industry.

       • Really? Provide a specific link to legitimate evidence supporting your “EPA’s Office of Water letterhead” claim. I visited the EPA Office of Water website and saw nothing about FSA promoted as “a convenient way of disposing of an otherwise known and troublesome pollutant”. Are you sure you aren’t confusing the EPA with Fluoride Action Network? I’ll send the EPA’s Office of Water an e-mail requesting a fact-check of your claim.

         Even if your claim is true, technically that’s an accurate statement. Diluting FSA to natural levels found in many rivers and lakes (and about half the level in oceans) to reduce the risk of dental decay is a much better solution than dumping the concentrated chemical directly into a landfill – which would never be a legal, scientific or rational option. Your “logic”, however is flawed. There are many uses in today’s world for fluorine, so calling NSA a pollutant is completely misleading. NSA for fluoridation is simply one of many uses for a valuable natural resource.
         Search on: uses of fluorine in industry

       • Mueller

         No “deflecting” here. Just provision of facts which correct your uninformed comments.

         Feel free to provide this phantom “explicitly in writing on EPA’s Office of Water letterhead,“. Your inevitable inability to do so will be further demonstration to readers of the dishonesty of your claims.

         Steven D. Slott, DDS

         • The letter is dated March 30, 1983, addressed to Leslie A. Russell, D.M.D., and signed by Rebecca Hanmer, Deputy Administrator for Water.

           A web search will reveal the letter in its entirety.

         • Mueller:

           The following is what you stated:

           “Another answer to that original question, explicitly in writing on EPA’s Office of Water letterhead, is that fluoridation with FSA is a convenient way of disposing of an otherwise known and troublesome pollutant from the phosphate mining and fertilizer manufacturing industry.”

           The below is the letter you cited, in its complete context. It speaks for itself in regard to your dishonesty, and misrepresentation of the letter. There is no letter which states what you claimed…..“explicitly” or otherwise.

           Reply UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY’ WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

           Leslie A. Russell, D.M.D. 363 Walnut Street
           Newtonville, Mass. 02160
           MAR30 1983

           Dear Dr. Russell:

           Thank you for your letter of March 9, 1983, in regard to the fluoridation of drinking water.

           The information available to the Environmental Protection Agency is that fluoridation is a safe and effective means for reducing the occurrence of dental caries. The fluoridation process has been endorsed by several Presidents of the United States and by several Surgeons General, including the current Surgeon General, Dr. C. Everett Koop. A copy of Dr. Koop’s statement on fluoridation is enclosed.

           Water treatment chemicals, including fluosilicic acid, have been evaluated for their potential for contributing to the contamination of drinking water. The Water Treatment Chemicals Codex, published by the National Academy of Sciences, prescribes the purity requirements for fluosilicic acid and other fluoridation chemicals.

           In regard to the use of fluosilicic acid as a source of fluoride for fluoridation, this Agency regards such use as an ideal environmental solution to a long-standing problem. By recovering by-product fluosilicic acid from fertilizer
           manufacturing, water and air pollution are minimized, and water utilities have a low-cost source of fluoride available to them. I hope this information adequately responds to your concern.

           Sincerely yours,

           Rebecca Hanmer
           Deputy Assistant Administrator
           for Water

           Steven D. Slott, DDS

         • Pointing out that using FSA to fluoridate drinking water solves a pollution problem, which would otherwise require costly disposal of a hazardous waste, hardly makes me dishonest.

         • Mueller:

           What the sentence you plucked out-of-context from this letter, then distorted to meet your own needs, points out is that harmful compounds that would otherwise be expelled into the environment are instead broken down and recycled by extracting useful components such as fluoride which are then utilized productively.

           Either you don’t understand the recycling process, or you believe recycling our natural resources to be of no value.

           Steven D. Slott, DDS

     • Mueller

       “ NSF International (NSF) manages the Drinking Water Systems (DWS) Center under the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program. ”

       —The Environmental Technology Verification Program
       US EPA

       Steven D. Slott, DDS

2. Wow Ms Reynolds. What a great opinion letter. Very well researched and right on the money. Ignore RJ’s comment. He’s not a dentist, MD, toxicologist, epidemiologist and has never published anything on fluoride. He trolls media articles and comments pretending to be be an expert. He’s definitely not. The science speaks for itself. (Dr. Hardy Limeback BSC PhD DDS, Prof. emeritus, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Toronto, former head of Preventive Dentistry, Member of the 2006 US NRC committee on fluoride in drinking water and author of over 100 papers and book chapters. I ‘literally wrote’ the text on preventive dentistry called Comprehensive Preventive Dentistry). Thank you.

   • Hardy

     Your personal attack on RJohnson, does not alter the accuracy of the information he provides. The author of this article has presented nothing but half-truths and standard talking points directly sourced from antifluoridationist groups. RJ has very nicely exposed this with facts that are easily verified from independent sources. That you believe “well-researched” to mean sole reliance on antifluoridationist websites and blogs is clear demonstration of your own lack of credibility. In addition, that you encourage readers to ignore the facts provided by RJ is clear demonstration of your lack of confidence that the author’s claims will bear up under proper scrutiny.

     Steven D. Slott, DDS

   • Limeback – Wow, what a “great” point by point non-science-based response to my specific science-based criticisms of Reynolds’ unsupported opinion letter. Unfortunately science training and experience can be hacked by exceptionally strong and inflexible personal beliefs which have nothing to do with science.

     There are strong outlier opinions to virtually any scientific consensus. If those opinions are from legitimate, impartial scientists who have researched and assembled legitimate, relevant, reproducible evidence that clearly demonstrates an established consensus (like the 4.5 billion-year age of the earth, the safety and effectiveness of vaccines and fluoridation, the safety of seat belts, the safety and effectiveness of specific medications, the concerns about climate changes, etc.) requires modification, the community of relevant experts will evaluate the evidence and modify the consensus appropriately. That is how science progresses – not by presenting false, unsupportable opinions like those of Reynolds and other fluoridation opponents (FOs).

     FOs have been unsuccessfully flailing around for over 70 years trying to produce legitimate scientific evidence to validate their opposition to the scientific consensus that fluoridation is a safe and effective public health measure to reduce the risk of dental decay and related health problems.

     FOs, like anti-vaccination activists, have no rational explanation for two critical facts:
     1) Virtually all (over 100) major science and health organizations in the world (with hundreds of thousands of members) support the scientific consensus that fluoridation/vaccination are safe and effective public health measures to protect health.
     2) There are no such science or health groups that support the anti-F or anti-Vax opinions. The only anti-F support comes from a few outlier science/health “experts, a handful of alternative “health” organizations like the IAOMT, vocal activist groups like the CHD (with an anti-vax agenda) and some conspiracy theory fanatics like Alex Jones [INFOWARS], David Icke [Son of the Godhead] and Mike Adams [Natural News]. Extremely strong opinions and vocal arguments can’t hide the lack of legitimate scientific support for the anti-F opinions.
     How do you explain these two facts?

     (To be continued)

     • (Continued)

       Perhaps you can provide specific scientific evidence to prove Reynolds’ anti-F opinions:
       1) Drinking optimally fluoridated water “causes fluorosis which actually increases the risk of cavities”.

       2) Drinking optimally fluoridated water “is presumed to be a cognitive neurodevelopmental hazard to humans”. When addressing this claim, describe exactly what percentage of any “presumed” association (not claims of any cause and effect relationship) between exposure to optimally fluoridated water and any reduction in IQ is proven by the data. Explain how many of the dozens of other factors that can influence IQ were considered in the studies. Address all of the expert criticisms of the Green, et al. fluoride/IQ study that can be found by searching on: Problems 2019 Green fluoride/IQ study, cyber-nook

       3) Provide specific scientific proof that drinking optimally fluoridated water causes “thyroid issues”.

       4) What does the word-spin nonsense, “no fluoride deficiency disease” have to do with the fact that 75-years of evidence demonstrates fluoridation reduces the risk of tooth decay? Why would any rational health care professional (or any caring individual, for that matter) deliberately choose to withhold a measure that protects public health?

       5) Provide the specific scientific evidence that proves harm from fluoridation that Reynolds alleges caused other countries to not implement fluoridation.

       6) Explain exactly how Reynolds’ “DO NOT SWALLOW…GET MEDICAL HELP…” reference to toothpaste – which typically contains around 1,500 ppm fluoride – relates to drinking a glass of optimally fluoridated water – which contains around 0.7 ppm fluoride? It never ceases to amaze me that FOs apparently can’t tell the difference.

       7) Provide specific evidence that proves drinking water fluoridation is a form of mass medication – where is the specific scientific or legal proof that fluoridation is something different than other water treatment processes like disinfection, pH adjustment, corrosion control and coagulation/flocculation that require the regulated addition of different chemicals to drinking water to protect the health of citizens. So far, I have seen only unsupported opinions.

       8) Explain exactly what the relevance is of Reynolds’ reference to lead exposure in the context of exposure to fluorine? There is no evidence I am aware of that exposure to lead at any level – topical or systemic – is beneficial. On the other hand, there are over 70 years of studies that show there are levels of exposure to fluorine that benefit health – low levels of systemic exposure (fluoridated water at 0.7 ppm) and topical exposure (around 1,500 ppm). That evidence clearly demonstrates exposure to very low levels increases the risk of dental decay, and exposure to levels far higher than found in optimally fluoridated water can cause health problems – a fact that is true for exposure to any substance, even water.

       If someone reading this opinion piece and resulting comments doesn’t have the training, experience or patience to personally examine, understand and evaluate hundreds of complex scientific studies, I would suggest trusting the majority of science and health experts for an accurate presentation of evidence instead of those whose opinions are only supported by anti-science activists.

3. Most countries avoid fluoridation like the plague.

   The truth is spreading and people everywhere are learning that fluoride in drinking water is ineffective for teeth and dangerous to health. With any drug, we all deserve freedom of choice.
   Consider that 95% of the world rejects fluoridation:
   In the US, 74 % fluoridated (more than the rest of the world combined).
   In Europe, only 3%.
   In the world, only 5%.
   In Canada, now 30% — down from 45% in seven years.
   China, India and Japan have rejected it years ago.
   Israel banned fluoridation in 2014.

   • No countries “avoid fluoridation like the plague.” There are many reasons some countries don’t employ the public health measure of fluoridation, but those decisions are not based on the false claims that fluoridation is harmful and ineffective promoted by fluoridation opponents. You would understand those reasons if you bothered to read something besides anti-fluoridation propaganda .
     Search on: American Dental Association, Fluoridation Facts
     Pages 29-30 and 102-103

     As always, you provide no legitimate, relevant, reproducible supporting evidence to prove any of your claims that fluoridation is harmful or ineffective – why? because there is no such evidence.

     That lack of supporting evidence is precisely why the virtually all the major science and health organizations in the world continue to support fluoridation, and the anti-F opinions are only supported by a few alternative “health” organizations like the IAOMT, some activist groups like the CHD (with an anti-vax agenda) and some conspiracy theory fanatics like Alex Jones [INFOWARS] , David Icke [Son of the Godhead] and Mike Adams [Natural News].

     A wise man provided an excellent description of your antics, “Whenever we have an idea in our heads for which we seek only confirming information, that’s exactly what we will find.”– Brian Dunning, 2019

     You can also search on:
     Fluoridation | Open Parachute
     American Fluoridation Society
     Fluoridation Reviews and Studies – cyber-nook
     Fluoridation and the Scientific Consensus – cyber-nook

4. Even if fluoride were somehow helpful to children’s teeth, EXACTLY why should EVERY ADULT be forced (without consent) to consume it in every glass of water every day of life and suffer the serious health problems listed below?

   Three scientist, one an M.D., offers the most complete scientific proof of the ineffectiveness and health dangers of this drug in this book,

   “The Case Against Fluoride: How Hazardous Waste Ended Up in Our Drinking Water and the Bad Science and Powerful Politics That Keep It There”

   It contains over 1200 scientific references (over 80 pages), showing that fluoride is ineffective for teeth and causes cancer, thyroid & pineal gland damage, broken hips from brittle bones, lowered IQ and dental fluorosis in children, kidney disease, arthritis and other serious health problems.

   • jwillie6 – In case you have not understood the concept of exposure levels, there is absolutely no legitimate scientific evidence that optimally fluoridated water (0.7 pp, F-) is toxic.

     This is the 5th time you have copy/pasted the nonsense about tCAF. Repeating the name of an anti-F propaganda piece does not magically create any validity. You have still never produced a single reference from that work of fiction to prove any of your opinions are true. That is expected, because as I noted the other 4 times you referenced tCAF, no actual study that was mentioned (nowhere near 1200, by the way) proved that drinking optimally fluoridated water causes any of the health effects you listed.

   • Exactly who forces you to drink water that contains fluoride?

     • The “forced” argument raises the image of fluoridation opponents standing around gulping down offensively odiferous tap water which they know has just been recently contaminated with a truckload of horse dung, because they have somehow been” “forced” to do so. Apparently, the action of water flowing from a faucet somehow emits a mysterious force on weak-willed fluoridation opponents compelling them to to drink it.

       Steven D. Slott, DDS

5. There’s nothing like a glass of cool, clear water to quench your thirst. But the next time you turn on the tap, you might want to question whether that water is in fact, too toxic to drink. If your water is fluoridated, the answer is likely “yes.”

   Below are 7 ‘little known’ facts about fluoride:

   Fluoride has been associated with increased risk of cancer. [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/69899]
   Fluoride does not improve dental health.
   [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3855733]
   Fluoride accumulates in the pineal gland and causes calcification. [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11275672]
   97% of Western Europe does not fluoridate their drinking water. [http://fluoridealert.org/content/water_europe/]
   Fluoride causes reduced IQ and other neurological issues in children. [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18695947]
   Fluoride adversely affects fertility./’
   [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25854509]
   Fluoride has been associated with increased risk of cardiovascular disease. [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28877084]

   • jwillie6 – the fact is, all studies you referenced have one, usually more, of the following characteristics which invalidates them as providing any proof of any harm from drinking optimally fluoridated water:
     1) The study referenced had nothing to do with drinking optimally fluoridated water (OFW);
     2) The study examined exposure to fluoride ions at far higher levels than found in OFW;
     3) Actual study conclusions were deliberately distorted, misused &/or misstated to fit anti-F propaganda;
     4) The study conclusions only suggested a possible weak correlation (or association), not a causal relationship;
     5) The study didn’t consider or adjust for numerous other factors potentially associated with the alleged risk, and it proved nothing;
     6) The study was unrepeatable;
     7) The study was demonstrably flawed and had significant limitations
     &/or
     8) The claim was a complete fabrication.

     It is interesting that your first reference was to a 1977 article by one of the most notorious anti-science activists, J Yiamouyiannis. He was an early, extremely vocal fluoridation opponent and distributed a propaganda pamphlet in the 1980s that served as a model for today’s anti-F war on science. Search on:
     > J Yiamouyiannis, quackwatch
     > J Yiamouyiannis, rationalwiki
     A review of Yiamouyiannis’ propaganda pamphlet – you will see most of the same anti-F opinions – not supported by evidence then, or now.
     > J Yiamouyiannis, abuse of the scientific. literature- pamphlet – Dental Watch

     The second reference is to a 1985 opinion piece by another fluoridation opponent.
     The third reference is about accumulation of F in the pineal gland over time (calcium also accumulates), but there is no conclusion that F causes any harm.
     The fluoridealert reference proves nothing except that fluoridation is often a political decision that may have numerous causes, but are not based on any legitimate scientific evidence of harm.
     The “Children’s Intelligence” link had absolutely nothing to do with fluoridation.
     The “fertility” link had absolutely nothing to do with fluoridation. Sperm were soaked in sodium fluoride solutions at levels hundreds of times higher than any possible exposure from drinking optimally fluoridated water.
     The last reference has absolutely nothing to do with drinking optimally fluoridated water causing an “increased risk of cardiovascular disease”

6. In response to Mrs. Reynolds’ opinion piece. I mean no disrespect, but her opinions are standard, unsupportable anti-fluoridation propaganda, and research conclusions are manipulated by fluoridation opponents (FOs) so they appear to support an anti-F agenda. Specifically:

   1) There is nothing new about the 2019 study that “too much fluoride causes fluorosis…” That has been established by the scientific and health communities for about 100 years. The key word is “excessive”. Any substance is harmful at excessive exposure levels. Drinking optimally fluoridated water does not constitute “excessive” exposure and does not cause fluorosis that is harmful to health, or even noticeable – except in a dental chair. It was the observation in the early 1900s that moderately excessive exposure to fluoride ions (roughly 2 – 3 ppm) caused very noticeable brown statins and reduced the risk of decay. The balance between protection from decay and noticeable fluorosis was established at about 1.0 ppm, fluoridation programs were initiated in the mid-1940s, and dental decay rates were reduced significantly.

   2) The 2019 NTP review referenced was a “draft monograph” which received withering criticisms from experts around the world for many reasons – both for the conclusion and for the review processes used to evaluate the studies. One of the most unscientific displays of presumed bias was the conclusion that, “fluoride is presumed to be a cognitive neurodevelopmental hazard to humans”. Even if the evaluation methods were legitimate, the fact that a statement of “presumed” harm without any context of exposure level which causes the alleged harm is about as unscientific as can be imagined. Any substance can be “presumed to be harmful”, even water.
   An important statement, ignored by FOs, is “As noted above, describing the effects at 1.5 mg/L or below, which is more relevant to the exposures observed in the U.S. population, including from community water fluoridation, is more difficult”. (P 57) In other words, there was no evidence that exposure levels over twice the optimal level had any measurable effects on any health issue. In addition, the studies reviewed had extremely severe limitations in design, implementation, and evaluation.
   For example, one of the studies reviewed (and frequently referenced by FOs), Green, et al. 2019, looked for an association between fluoride exposure and IQ. That study allegedly found a very small decrease in IQ in boys and a small increase in IQ in girls associated with a 1 mg/L increase in F- level. However, there were so many problems with the study it received unprecedented criticism from experts around the world. I have assembled some of the specific criticisms here:
   cyber-nook[dot]com/water/FluoridationInformation-green[dot]html

   3) The “study at Harvard” referenced is most likely by Philippe Grandjean, who is a long-time FO. For specific discussions of his studies and opinions, search on:
   > Grandjean: open parachute
   > Grandjean: “American Fluoridation Society”

   4) There is no legitimate scientific evidence that proves drinking optimally fluoridated water leads to thyroid problems. As noted in response 1, the key to understanding the health effects of any substance is exposure levels. Treatments to lower thyroid activity had significantly higher levels of F- than the 0.2 mg in a glass of optimally fluoridated water.

   5) Fluoridation simply contributes to the process of reducing the risk of tooth decay and related health problems (which can lead to serious problems). The phrase “fluoride deficiency disease” is misleading and meaningless.
   A study that compares decay rates based on differences in lifetime exposure to fluoridated water: ~> Contemporary evidence on the effectiveness of water fluoridation in the prevention of childhood caries: Spencer, et al., Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2018
   Three recent studies have demonstrated an increase in dental decay in cities after CWF was halted:
   ~> Juneau, AK – Consequences of community water fluoridation cessation for Medicaid-eligible children and adolescents in Juneau, Alaska: Jennifer Meyer, et al., BMC Oral Health201818:215
   ~> Windsor, Ontario – Oral Health Report 2018 Update, Windsor-Essex County Health Unit
   ~> Calgary, Alberta – Measuring the short‐term impact of fluoridation cessation on dental caries in Grade 2 children: Lindsay McLaren, et al., Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology, June 2016

   6) FOs frequently use the argument that toothpaste carries a “DO NOT SWALLOW” warning. It is remarkable that they can’t seem to understand there is a difference between a tube of toothpaste, which contains fluoride levels above 1,000 ppm, and a glass of water with fluoride levels of 0.7 ppm. The fact is, someone who binged on fluoridated water (bottled or otherwise) would die from overexposure to the toxic H2O molecules looooong before the fluoride ions would cause any harm.

   7) Fluoridation is not “mass medication”. The FDA regulates fluoridated bottled water as a “Food For Human Consumption”, not a medication”, and there are no warnings required on fluoridated water (bottled or tap) that the fluoride ions could cause any harm whatever – as noted above, excessive exposure to the water molecules would be far more dangerous to health than the fluoride ions.

   8) Unlike fluoride ions, which have a 75-year scientifically documented record of benefits at low exposure levels by reducing the risk of dental decay, lead has no record of health benefits at any level. Comparing the two is just another fear-mongering tactic of FOs.

   When it comes to fluoridated water which side of history will you be on? The side supported by virtually all the recognized science and health organizations in the word, or the opinions of vocal outlier FOs whose opinions are supported only by a handful of alternative “health” organizations like the IAOMT, some activist groups like FAN, nyscof, the CHD (with an anti-vax agenda) and some conspiracy theory fanatics like Alex Jones [INFOWARS], David Icke [Son of the Godhead] and Mike Adams [Natural News]. Extremely strong opinions and vocal arguments can’t hide the lack of legitimate scientific support for the anti-F opinions. For specific refutations of anti-F propaganda and references that support fluoridation, search on:
   > American Dental Association, Fluoridation Facts
   > Fluoridation | Open Parachute
   > What do health experts say about fluoridation: Campaign for Dental Health
   > American Fluoridation Society
   > Fluoridation Reviews and Studies – cyber-nook
   > Fluoridation and the Scientific Consensus – cyber-nook
   > Fluoridation References: cyber-nook

Comments are closed.